A wide range of U.S. and international civil society organizations
and individuals have joined in opposition to a disturbing trend toward
the marketing of new sex selection technologies and "designer"
babies.

In an open letter to Dr. J. Benjamin Younger, Executive Director
of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), signatories
urge the ASRM to take immediate action to discourage the use of sex
selection technologies for anything except the prevention of serious
medical conditions.

After Mr. Robertson's endorsement, the founder of a chain of U.S.
fertility clinics stated he would begin offering PGD for sex selection.

The letter was jointly drafted by the Center for Genetics and Society;
the Committee on Women, Population and the Environment (CWPE); Manavi,
Inc., a New Jersey based organization for South Asian women; Andolan,
an organization of South Asian low-wage workers in New York City;
and the Boston Women's Health Book Collective. It expresses deep concerns
about the inherent potential for gender discrimination posed by the
practice of sex selection: "While motivations for desiring a
child of a particular sex may vary, there are no non-sexist reasons
for pre-selecting sex except in cases of preventing serious sex-linked
diseases. This is true even in the United States, where economic and
social pressures to raise male children are minimized in comparison
to other societies."

The letter also expresses concern about advertisements for sex selection
techniques that target South Asian Americans. In addition, it warns
that the use of PGD for sex selection may normalize embryo selection
based on other non-essential traits such as hair and eye color; thus
legitimizing a new form of eugenics.

The letter has received support from 94 women's, reproductive rights,
public health, disability rights, and South Asian organizations and
individuals.

We are writing to express our deep concern about the recent letter
from John Robertson, the acting head of your Ethics Committee, supporting
the use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for sex selection in
cases where a couple desires "gender variety" in their children.
While we understand that the sentiments expressed in his letter do
not reflect a shift in the ASRM's official policy on this matter (as
expressed in its 1999 report), we believe that the actual repercussions
of this widely publicized letter should be of great concern to the
committee, to ASRM, and to the fertility field as a whole.

According to media reports, the letter is already being used by some
fertility specialists to justify offering IVF/PGD even to fertile
couples for the sole purpose of sex identification and selection.
One fertility center's website seems to suggest that ASRM approves
of this practice, citing ASRM's "official opinion" that
PGD is no longer "considered an experimental procedure"
and then stating a few sentences later that "PGD also lends itself
to non-medically indicated gender selection." (See http://www.centerforhumanreprod.com/treatment_assisted.html.)

Your own 1999 report asserts that this scenario "holds greater
risk of unwarranted gender bias, social harm, and the diversion of
medical resources from genuine medical need."

Nearly concurrent with Robertson's approval of PGD for sex selection,
ads placed by American fertility practitioners offering both pre-
and post-conception sex selection have targeted the South Asian community
in North America. (See "Clinics'
Pitch to Indian Émigrés," The New York Times, 8/15/01.)
Those marketing this "service" to South Asians are surely
aware that sex selection in India disfavors female children, capitalizing
on the strong son preference and overall gender discrimination that
have led to alarming gender imbalances in the population. India's
experience with sex selection should leave no doubt that all methods
of sex selection are potentially abusive and discriminatory.

The fact that some clinics in the United States are willing to exploit
such practices should act as a warning to proceed with extreme caution
in these matters. Fertility specialists who offer potentially lucrative
yet ethically problematic services threaten to erode public trust
in the fertility field as a whole.

Our organizations, which work to promote the rights, health, and
reproductive freedoms of women, believe that condoning the non-medical
use of PGD for sex selection would promote an already controversial
technology for an inherently discriminatory use. While motivations
for desiring a child of a particular sex may vary, there are no non-sexist
reasons for pre-selecting sex except in cases of preventing serious
sex-linked diseases. This is true even in the United States, where
economic and social pressures to raise male children are minimized
in comparison to other societies.

PGD presents serious ethical dilemmas precisely because it is so
often difficult to distinguish medical from non-medical conditions.
Allowing PGD for "gender variety" is a clear example of
a non-medical application. Preselecting traits such as sex opens the
door to embryo selection based on other non-medical traits, and constitutes
a major step toward the "designing" of children.

We urge ASRM to take the earliest and strongest possible actions
to discourage the use of pre- and post-conception sex selection for
anything other than the prevention of serious medical conditions.
A strong stand by ASRM on this matter would be an important step in
promoting a climate in which reproductive and genetic technologies
are not misused. We ask that you be in touch with a response.